i found it a bit fummy when Astro told us he got closer to cansellation using the Ison device. is this a rip-off as well?

is this a game ( or a joke ?) i have no time to spare trying to cancell all signal built from CW dsp !personaly i have no time for it but ask MC ... he will do it for you !!!

Sonolife, eh, how should I tell this, hmmm...listen, this friendly post of Piddy was implicitely but also explicitely supporting DAS/Polteq, he let the possibility open that all of us 'stupid members' (quote from Eric or you) are seeing ghosts...

The sentence 'is this a ripp-off as well??' is rhetorical, it says, if that is true every plug is a ripp-off, and therefor no plugin qualifies for that, the Polteq included.
Cherish the man, he deserves it, from your point

(absolutely no offend Piddy, in fact your questions are interesting, I would like to know more about the (im)possibilities of using the standard atoms of plugs).
cheers.

On 2006-09-25 09:33, piddi wrote:...i found it a bit fummy when Astro told us he got closer to cansellation using the Ison device. is this a rip-off as well?

well, I've commented the procedure a couple of times already, but to make it clear:

I added a (technically) valid cancellation setup to an existing project and didn't get even close to what Martin's predictions.
So I concluded he was wrong.
But since I was already at it, I suspected a possible reason (for the result) might be that DAS had increased the Polteq's bandwidth (lowerd it's Q-factor, steepness) and the ISON is the only EQ in SFP (afaik) that goes below 0.7, so it was the only option to do a test.
ISON's 0.5 Q was decisive for my purchase back then - and this feature alone makes it outstanding.

As the degree of cancellation indeed increased, I concluded I was on the right track, but in fact I was bloody wrong.
Things aren't always what they look like at first glance...
The project itself was so messed regarding it's (internal) sample accuracy that not even 2 identical eqs with identical settings cancelled each other.

When I loaded Martin's presets into a new project it worked as he predicted, when I loaded them into the 'messy' project they failed, when I loaded them into the (formerly unused) backup copy of the 'messy' one they worked.
So I can reproduce that erroneous behaviour and it has nothing at all to do with Polteq.

This result is far more interesting (and useful ) for me than the knowledge that someone repacked or modified something.

In fact I posted (under general discussion) that imho even an improved usability would justify a commercial release. The PEQ4 does sound great (it's stock eq in a fairlight console), but it's a pita to operate.

strangely this pro DAS statement was completely overlooked by cher Eric, who seems to see me as the personalized evil - which I enjoy of course, as it matches my zodiac - and it pleases me that he overestimates my influence on opinions

On 2006-09-25 14:36, MCCYRANO wrote:Maybe we should really leave it that way:Give me 2 weeks. Shit, yes, I'm stressed with other work, one won't believe I might have better things to do.

hi,

please,prove me and us that you have phase cancellation on all the band activate and of course, boost and cut activate too ,and after we will speak about another thing.
of course ,without modify phase with a delay on each...
and i give you more than 2 weeks of course i have to mix an album...

you want peace ? me too of course.

and one thing :

whats things are copy on ?

only good things

thanks martin to talk about our polteq.this week end ,during this s..t post,we have sold polteq and sl9000.

Polteq is like two ParaEQ and if you wanna chancel it completly, you have to load virtually 4 PEQ-> which leads to phase issues and won`t chancel out complete...

Its really enough that you chanceled out 2 bands.

If I compare 2 added bands from PEQ4 with the DAS it sounds nearly exactly the same. We can discuss if they modeled the behaviour of analog EQ that change the Q with Gain and other things but the basic sound is the same.

I compared the DAS with native EQ and yes it sounds better. But I was new with Scope.

they show us -91db ...normaly,it should show -inf course with a total cancellation but it's not the good way to prove a phase cancellation..
i want and we want to see the phase meter of course,it's the only thing to prove a phase cancellation.

second point :

where are the polteq and peq 4 settings ?
have you make equal on all band on polteq ?

c'mon folks - I'll do the test in 4 minutes with 6 bands
as I wouldn't trust any statistics that I didn't fake myself, so I wouldn't trust a screenshot...
photoshop is just around the corner

Eric certainly knows what's under the hood of the device, but I'd almost bet that Scope will fool him too...
just like Olive and me - and those millions of VST users not even aware something like this may exist

on the other hand (we may keep this as a secret) a real Pultec EQ can NEVER clip...
it's a passive design with the gain stage after the filter... never mind - if it sounds good, it IS good
of course I have NOT forgot that THIS is not a true Pultec emulation - but how about one then ? - or isn't it worth the effort because the 'real' sound may not exactly fit contemporary expectations ?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum